ColóN-González v. Puerto Rico
| Decision Date | 05 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 17-1162 (DRD) |
| Parties | JUAN IVAN COLÓN-GONZÁLEZ; Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al.; Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
On February 3, 2017, Plaintiff Juan Ivan Colón-González (hereinafter, "Plaintiff" or "Colón") filed a Complaint, under various federal and local laws, against various Defendants (hereinafter, "Defendants"), including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Comisión Estatal de Elecciones, in English, "Puerto Rico State Commission on Elections" (hereinafter, "CEE" for its Spanish acronym), and Liza M. Garcia-Velez (hereinafter, "García"), both in her personal capacity and in her official capacity. See Docket No. 1. Plaintiff claims that he was discriminated against based on sex and age, and that for this reason he was unjustly terminated from his position on June 30, 2015. See Id. He further claims the reason provided for his termination was fabricated and illegal because he worked as a career employee, not as an employee in a position of trust. See Id. at 2.
On August 8, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing, inter alia, that Defendant Garcia is not individually liable and that the Defendants, in general, are not liable. See Docket No. 32. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss at Docket No. 32.
Taking the allegations set forth in the Complaint as true, the facts are as follows:
On July 2, 2003, Plaintiff was hired as Administrator for the Comisión Estatal de Elecciones Child Care Center [hereinafter, "CEE Child Care Center"], a career position1 that had educational and experiential requirements. See Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 17, 20 & 24. During his twelve (12) years of service, Plaintiff never received warnings or was admonished by the other Presidents of the CEE Child Care Center. See Id. at ¶¶ 34-37. To the contrary, "all prior presidents were extremely satisfied by [his] work as Administrator [of the CEE Child Care Center]." See Id. at ¶ 37. According to Plaintiff, in January of 2015, Defendant García was designated to "bec[ome] Acting Presidentof the CEE" and shortly thereafter began exhibiting a "pattern of negative behavior towards the Plaintiff." See Id. at ¶¶ 38-39.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant García "began to cut communications with Plaintiff", "never addressed the Plaintiff directly", isolated Plaintiff from administrative decisions", and disrespected Colón on various occasions. See Id. at ¶¶ 40-44. Plaintiff further claims that Defendant García stripped him of some of his functions as Administrator and intentionally sabotaged Plaintiff so that he would come across as a deficient employee and be negatively affected in his job. See Id. at ¶¶ 45-46. Pursuant to the allegations, Plaintiff was ultimately terminated from his position on June 30, 2015, for lack of trust even though he was occupying a career position. See Id. at ¶ 47. Shortly thereafter, Defendant García appointed a younger, female employee to substitute Plaintiff without holding a job announcement or interviewing any candidates, as was done when Plaintiff was first appointed in 2003. See Id. at ¶ 48.
On February 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, claiming that Defendants were liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) [hereinafter, "Title VII"] and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 [hereinafter, "ADEA"], as well as various state laws for the reasons stated above. See Docket No. 1. On August 2, 2017, due to the claims for monetary relief, the Court issued an order staying the instant case under Title III of PROMESA, 48 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2241. See Docket Nos. 19 & 20. Later, on July 19, 2019, the Court reopened the case solely to determine whether Plaintiff has the right to be reinstated to his position as Administrator of the CEE Child Care Center. See Docket No. 28.
On August 8, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. See Docket No. 32. Defendants did not challenge the facts set forth in the Complaint, but rather, limited themselves tochallenging their liability under the federal and state law statutes invoked by Plaintiff and claiming that the state law claims are time-barred. See Id. Among other claims, Defendants aver that Defendant Garcia is not individually liable under Title VII or the ADEA because the general rule of the First Circuit prohibiting individual liability of employees applies. See Id. at 6-7. Defendants also claim that the state-law claims are time-barred. See Id. at 7-10. Defendants further contend that sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution applies warranting a dismissal as to the CEE. See Id. at 11-15.
On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Defendant Garcia is indeed liable under Title VII and the ADEA. He supports this argument by citing caselaw precedent from sister Circuits. See Docket No. 44 at 7-10. Plaintiff also avers that Defendants are all liable under state law claims. See Docket no. 44.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires plaintiffs to provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Under Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), a plaintiff must "provide the grounds of his entitlement [with] more than labels and conclusions." See Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011) () (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (citation omitted). Thus, a plaintiff must, and is currently required to, present allegations that "nudge [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible" in order to comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a). Id. at 570; see e.g. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court's inquiry occurs in a two-step process under the current context-based "plausibility" standard established by Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, and Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662. "Context based" means that a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts that comply with the basic elements of the cause of action. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-679 (). First, the Court must "accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint[,]" discarding legal conclusions, conclusory statements and factually threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. "Yet we need not accept as true legal conclusions from the complaint or 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'" Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 268 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. 678) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
Under the second step of the inquiry, the Court must determine whether, based upon all assertions that were not discarded under the first step of the inquiry, the complaint "states a plausible claim for relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. 679. This second step is "context-specific" and requires that the Court draw from its own "judicial experience and common sense" to decide whether a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted, or, conversely, whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate. Id.
Thus "[i]n order to survive a motion to dismiss, [a] plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show that he has a plausible entitlement to relief." Sanchez v. Pereira-Castillo, 590 F.3d 31, 41 (1st Cir. 2009). "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged —but has not 'show[n]' 'that the pleader is entitled to relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Furthermore,such inferences must be at least as plausible as any "obvious alternative explanation." Id. at 679-80 (citing Twombly 550 U.S. at 567). "A plaintiff is not entitled to 'proceed perforce' by virtue of allegations that merely parrot the elements of the cause of action." Ocasio-Hernandez, 640 F.3d at 12, (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679); Sanchez v. Pereira-Castillo, 590 F.3d 31, 45 (1st Cir. 2009).
The First Circuit has cautioned against equating plausibility with an analysis of the likely success on the merits, affirming that the plausibility standard assumes "pleaded facts to be true and read in a plaintiff's favor" even if seemingly incredible. Sepúlveda-Villarini v. Dep't of Educ. of P.R., 628 F.3d 25, 30 (1st Cir. 2010) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556); Ocasio-Hernandez, 640 F.3d at 12 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556) ("[T]he court may not disregard properly pled factual allegations, 'even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable.'"). Instead, the First Circuit has emphasized that "[t]he make-or-break standard . . . is...
To continue reading
Request your trial